advertisement


MQA bad for Music?


"What are the costs associated with implementing MQA in my product?

Other than your own standard engineering costs (required to integrate the technology), you will need to become a Licensee for the MQA decoder. The license agreement will outline the commercial terms & conditions for your company and products, and will also document the per-unit royalties payable to MQA.
"

"Why are your per-unit royalties not published?

At MQA, rather than focus on the one or two products you may have in mind immediately, we prefer to have a dialogue with you about all your product-lines that the MQA technology may be relevant on moving forward. With this is mind, we can discuss what the long-term partnership could be, and reflect this in a fixed per-unit royalty that spans a number of years. That way your product managers always know what the per-unit royalty cost for the MQA decoder will be, and it also ensures these costs are not volatile or negatively impacted during ramp-up phases, or with seasonal fluctuations in sales.
"
 
No, it means the information is not public. If you have the information and think you are at liberty to disclose it, please post it

No I don't have it nor do I think you do.

Do you have it although you can't disclose it?
 
No I don't have it nor do I think you do.

Do you have it although you can't disclose it?

No, the reason I don't have it is that my usual sources have told me that they can't tell me. :)

They have dropped hints about magnitude and structure.
 
No, the reason I don't have it is that my usual sources have told me that they can't tell me. :)

They have dropped hints about magnitude and structure.

So your insinuating that Mytek bet the house by taking up MQA was based on "hints", then?
 
So your insinuating that Mytek bet the house by taking up MQA was based on "hints", then?

No. I pointed out that even if the licensing terms would be a major barrier for smaller manufacturers, there can still be a few that might take the jump - so the fact that one small manufacturer goes for MQA doesn't prove that the licensing isn't a major hurdle.. Read what you will into that.
 
No. I pointed out that even if the licensing terms would be a major barrier for smaller manufacturers, there can still be a few that might take the jump - so the fact that one small manufacturer goes for MQA doesn't prove that the licensing isn't a major hurdle.. Read what you will into that.

I don't read much into that really. Just a few ifs, cans and mights.
 
"
At MQA, rather than focus on the one or two products you may have in mind immediately, we prefer to have a dialogue with you about all your product-lines that the MQA technology may be relevant on moving forward. With this is mind, we can discuss what the long-term partnership could be, and reflect this in a fixed per-unit royalty that spans a number of years. That way your product managers always know what the per-unit royalty cost for the MQA decoder will be, and it also ensures these costs are not volatile or negatively impacted during ramp-up phases, or with seasonal fluctuations in sales.
"

Does that mean that each company can't know what their competitors are being charged for what they may regard as a very similar requirement? i.e. they may feel exposed to being discriminated against (or for!) but have no way to tell?
 
Does that mean that each company can't know what their competitors are being charged for what they may regard as a very similar requirement? i.e. they may feel exposed to being discriminated against (or for!) but have no way to tell?

As far as I know, yes. I don't think stuff like that totally secret in such a small industry, but in fact it is pretty much "we charge you what we think we should charge you". That also means that there might have been favorable arrangements for some early adopters.
 
You think... And I have feedback from inside industry and there are costs involved if you want to have MQA hardware support on your streamer. It will maybe not a problem for big companies like audioquest, but it is different story for small producers.

what costs, for what? Some cash for Mqa to test implementation or a On going cost per device? The revenue is going to be in plays not in penalising the partners that willl facilitate those plays. I might be wrong but you don't seem to have any facts either
 
Hopefully Damien of Audirvana Plus will make public version 3.0 at the end of this week which will support software "decoding" of MQA files, how much it folds/unfolds is to be seen and heard.

As for Linn's article, I reckon bad for the Music Industry would have been more apt. I've been listening to a number of MQA files via a borrowed Meridian Explorer 2. Perhaps with the aid of the more upmarket MYTEK DAC the files would sound better, more a live. I wasn't swept away with the "difference" in sound. Am really curious if unfolding to 24/352 really is on par with DSD256. Again, it would be to the MYTEK or similar MQA compatible DAC to assist in such a comparison.
 
what costs, for what? Some cash for Mqa to test implementation or a On going cost per device? The revenue is going to be in plays not in penalising the partners that willl facilitate those plays. I might be wrong but you don't seem to have any facts either

Have a think! Why there is handful of partners on MQA website? It was launched back in 2014. Maybe they should go to Dragon's Den and ask for help? ;)

http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners
 
Nowhere does it say that MQA licence fees are RAND, so one friendly early adopter might get a (very) cheap deal, while a big competitor to Meridian might face a high cost. I know MQA and Meridian are officially separate, but....
 
I think I raised a Noise Shaping program in this topic thread a while ago. So this is just to say that I have now put a version of a program that takes a 24bit Wave file and generates a 16bit noise shaped version up at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WAVNoiseShaping.zip

Please NOTE though, that this is a *RISC OS* version. So its main use at present is that it contains the source code in a RO dialect of 'C'. This may be useful for anyone interested in doing a similar program for other platforms. Although at some point I'll probably do a Linux/GCC version and make it available.

The zip contains a 'Help' file as well as the source code.
 
I think I raised a Noise Shaping program in this topic thread a while ago. So this is just to say that I have now put a version of a program that takes a 24bit Wave file and generates a 16bit noise shaped version up at

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/WAVNoiseShaping.zip

Please NOTE though, that this is a *RISC OS* version. So its main use at present is that it contains the source code in a RO dialect of 'C'. This may be useful for anyone interested in doing a similar program for other platforms. Although at some point I'll probably do a Linux/GCC version and make it available.

The zip contains a 'Help' file as well as the source code.

Sorry, what's the point?
 


advertisement


Back
Top